Parable of the workers in the vineyard, is it really fair?

[lostguest]

I was wondering, how is the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20: 1-16) different from a modern day employer who pays men more than women for doing the exact same work? Or what if an employer decided to pay, for example white people more than people of other races (or minorities and people from third world countries) for doing the same amount or even more work?
Also, even though people normally agree beforehand to certain work conditions as far as pay and type/amount of work, they still have an expectation of payment proportional to their work. In my opinion it would be different if they knew prior to agreeing to work under those conditions that others would get paid the same for a fraction of their effort and knowing that they would be carrying other people's weight.
I understand that the householder was trying to be generous to the laborers who came late. However, personally I think that the parable could only be considered fair if for instance, the householder had "loaned" the payment to the late workers but had then come back to work another day to make up for the hours they didn't work, given the fact that the early workers were not aware of all the facts prior to agreeing to work. Or maybe the householder should have let the early workers go home early once the late workers arrived while still paying them the agreed upon amount.

[ttruscott]

I was wondering, how is the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20: 1-16) different from a modern day employer who pays men more than women for doing the exact same work? Or what if an employer decided to pay, for example white people more than people of other races (or minorities and people from third world countries) for doing the same amount or even more work?
...

A parable is an allegory pointing to a truth without actually having to be perfect. You are arguing for the truth of the allegory to be proven before the truth it points to can be accepted. This is a waste of effort because by its nature an allegory does not contain the truth it points to.

The early workers were the believers who worked for Christ for a lifetime yet the newly converted only worked a short time to get their heavenly reward, eternal life. The economy of this is: join HIS crew, get eternal life, without any reference to how long one has been in His crew.

This is eminently fair because eternal life is a gift, not a wage for a good or GOD serving life, actions which pay a reward above eternal life but that is not the concept under discussion in these verses.

So to discuss the intricacies of the allegory (wages paid) is meaningless as it is only a shadow of the spiritual truth (eternal life is a gift) under discussion, sigh.

Peace, Ted

[jeager106]

What ttruscott said^^^^^. (Sigh)

[dianaiad]

What ttruscott said^^^^^. (Sigh)

Moderator Comment

Please don't post one line agreements to other posts: we have a process for that. Donate some MPG's (as soon as you have some to donate). If you don't want to do that, then please expand your thoughts and tell us all why you agree.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[jeager106]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Ouch. I'm sorry I won't do that again.

[shnarkle]

I was wondering, how is the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20: 1-16) different from a modern day employer who pays men more than women for doing the exact same work? Or what if an employer decided to pay, for example white people more than people of other races (or minorities and people from third world countries) for doing the same amount or even more work?
Also, even though people normally agree beforehand to certain work conditions as far as pay and type/amount of work, they still have an expectation of payment proportional to their work. In my opinion it would be different if they knew prior to agreeing to work under those conditions that others would get paid the same for a fraction of their effort and knowing that they would be carrying other people's weight.
I understand that the householder was trying to be generous to the laborers who came late. However, personally I think that the parable could only be considered fair if for instance, the householder had "loaned" the payment to the late workers but had then come back to work another day to make up for the hours they didn't work, given the fact that the early workers were not aware of all the facts prior to agreeing to work. Or maybe the householder should have let the early workers go home early once the late workers arrived while still paying them the agreed upon amount.

shnarkle: You're position is understandable given the state of our society; a society that insists on egalitarian regulations to insure fairness. However, this isn't really possible in reality. It isn't a fair world we live in. As much as we'd like to try and make life fair for everyone someone always gets left out.

Let me give a current example from the newspaper: Indiana lawmakers decide to allow the religiously minded an exemption from anti-discrimination laws by refusing to serve those with sexual orientations that conflict with their beliefs or doctrines. Notice that one group is being given preferential treatment while another one isn't? Why not give preferential treatment to Jews who don't want to serve antisemitic Nazis? Why not exempt vegetarians from serving a cattle slaughtering organisation? The list could go on ad-infinitum. The simple solution is to just make the law for everyone without exception, e.g. "Anyone may refuse service to anyone for any reason."

Instead, we have big business threatening to leave the state of Indiana. How would these big corporations like it if Indiana mandated that they work in their state for someone they don't want to work with or for because of their conscience? They wouldn't like it too much, but that won't stop them from telling others that they must work for other against their will. This is essentially the definition of slavery.

The parable isn't presenting something that is unfair. All parties are engaging in voluntary agreements. The problem arises when those who see that they aren't getting paid as much as those who arrived late are overcome with jealousy. That's their problem. They haven't been tricked or deceived, but they think that they have the right to tell someone how to spend their own money. They think that they have the right to instruct others how to deal with their private property. They shouldn't have that right. These themes are still as relevant today as they were then.

[alexx]

[Replying to post 25 by shnarkle]

what if we just say god is a ruthless lover in the sense that he would be saying if you were the boss would you not do the same? i mean a boss free from the shackles of popular opinion? its ironic to me that in the old days this was practiced without guilt you might say? is the new testament freely distributed the only reason things changed over time?

[JehovahsWitness]

I was wondering, how is the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20: 1-16) different from a modern day employer who pays men more than women for doing the exact same work?

No, in bible times people were paid by the day not by the hour. If the Morning workers wanted to refuse the terms and wait til later in the day to see if they were still hired they could do so. Or refuse entirely; but that a days wage was offered without a reduction as the day progressed was rather kindness on his part. In reality he could have justifiabbly given the later workers LESS but he wasn't obliged to give the early workers more (because they didn't work more than a day).

[marco]

I was wondering, how is the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20: 1-16) different from a modern day employer who pays men more than women for doing the exact same work?

We can examine the parable for aptness and meaning. It immediately strikes one as portraying, and apparently approving of, injustice. The reply at the end is that the owner can do what he likes with his own cash. While this is true, it doesn't remove the perceived unfairness.

If the meaning is that God disposes in whatever way he chooses and we cannot complain then the lesson is one of acceptance of our lot in life, our riches or our poverty, our infirmities or our strengths, the deaths of young children or the longevity of tyrants. All are God's will. It is a bleak lesson but if God is placed supremely in the firmament then what more can be said?

It is as well that Christ taught other parables that hint of God's goodness. Perhaps he was having a particularly bad day and decided on some blunt talking.

[Wootah]

I was wondering, how is the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20: 1-16) different from a modern day employer who pays men more than women for doing the exact same work?

We can examine the parable for aptness and meaning. It immediately strikes one as portraying, and apparently approving of, injustice. The reply at the end is that the owner can do what he likes with his own cash. While this is true, it doesn't remove the perceived unfairness.

If the meaning is that God disposes in whatever way he chooses and we cannot complain then the lesson is one of acceptance of our lot in life, our riches or our poverty, our infirmities or our strengths, the deaths of young children or the longevity of tyrants. All are God's will. It is a bleak lesson but if God is placed supremely in the firmament then what more can be said?

It is as well that Christ taught other parables that hint of God's goodness. Perhaps he was having a particularly bad day and decided on some blunt talking.

It's a parable and the workers are Christians. Some believe early in their life and work all day and go to heaven. Some believe at the end of their lives and still get to go to heaven. That's the meaning.

Many of the workers perceive this as unjust because they are sinners saved by grace and forget that fact. We should be rejoicing the return of the prodigal son no matter at what hour.

[marco]

It's a parable and the workers are Christians. Some believe early in their life and work all day and go to heaven. Some believe at the end of their lives and still get to go to heaven. That's the meaning.

Many of the workers perceive this as unjust because they are sinners saved by grace and forget that fact. We should be rejoicing the return of the prodigal son no matter at what hour.

Yes, I know it's a parable but the point of a didactic figure is that it should be appropriate to the intended lesson. This one isn't, since it suggests blatant unfairness. In the Christian explanation, the unfairness is gone, since people merit heaven by their conviction, regardless of when it takes place (or so we understand.)

I have no problem rejoicing the return of the prodigal son or the good fortune of those who, like St. Augustine, had their sinful fun and then repented. My criticism is with the analogy that has been chosen.

If people are "chosen" then what has happened to personal decision to become a Christian? If the owner equates with God, then the emphasis is on who God choses, rather than who chooses to be a Christian.
Labouring, as a Christian, paints a negative image. Those who came late apparently did not labour until their conversion. One would have thought that their torment ceased when they found God.